[waterhog]

MP's that lobby - make it a a criminal offence - petition 02.06.13

i am out of my zone,
this is the worst criminality,
because hardly any of them have back bone,
its such a depressing reality.
and after the "expenses scandal",
we were assured no more "crimes",
so blow out the R-I-P candle,
and buy a copy of the "Sunday Times".
so what has ignited,
has "Pepsi" impersonated "coca cola",
none of the 3 accused are delighted,
there hate won't be created through energy that's "solar".
straight away denied,
its the "parliamentary code",
so to now not be left open wide,
Lord "Laird" has gone into a convenient resignation mode.
one more add to the drama,
Lord "Laird" won't think this is complementary,
he was secretly filmed by "Panorama",
all to do with question that are "parliamentary".
the "house of lords" "code" is crystal,
breaking it and all no the price,
shot in the foot by there own pistol,
because on offer were "services" or "advice".
Lord "Cunningham" is a fony,
because he was doing something sinister,
yes he was the one under "Labors" "tony",
he proposed to push "solar energy" by writing to the prime-mister.
not content with 10G a year,
in the "reporter" did real,
straight down my cheek was a tear,
lord "Cunningham" said "make that .... £12000, i think we could do a deal.
Cunningham to denied,
his operations were in the rule,
i hope justice is now applied,
because to all 3 men we need to be cruel.
lastly is lord "Mackenzie" to review,
this gives me a buzz,
how humiliating is this self chew,
showing pure corruption in the "fuzz".
he told the BBC he is "freed",
by checking the "code" it was to near the line",
"so many thousands a month" but no figure agreed,
does that put him in the shine.
Labor made a statement,
all about high expectations,
i suppose under "Blrown" they had arrangement,
the "10p tax row" still gives me frustrations.
shadow defense "Jim Murphy" had shame thickened,
he had not been taken for a twirl,
he said people would be "slightly sickened",
and it all made his toes curl.
Douglas Alexander was angry,
he no's this can not be mended,
but this makes the "media" hungry,
because none of it can be defended.
on "LBC" news was the debate,
i really did have a giggle,
this i am sure does inflate,
can not wait to see all 3 wriggle.
like with every MP expense claim,
we need to police with a "bobby",
but members of parliament have no shame,
thats why to make it a "offence" i want to lobby.

( http://www.change.org/en-GB/petition...iminal-offence )

[Cherie]

I do agree, but it seems to be an acceptable type of theft for some reason.

[GypsyGoth]

If it was poor people scamming the system like this, they would be told to pay it back and probably get sent to prison.

Because it's lords and ladies doing the swindling, the journalists or the complicated laws will be said to be at fault.

[joeysteele]

It is immoral and wrong, I don't know how I really feel as to it being a criminal offence but what it should mean is an instant dismissal from being an MP, the banning too of then standing for same again and also loss of any pension rights too.

Some of the people who are doing this are in fact very wealthy individuals themselves anyway and they bring disgrace to Parliament and to whatever party they belong to at the time.
Get rid of them and really hit them too in their pockets, where having such a love of money, will hurt them the most.

[Omah]

Every 10th MP should be taken out and shot, "pour encourager les autres" .....

[Kizzy]

''The deputy prime minister has pledged to create a "cleaner, better politics" after days of sleaze allegations involving MPs and peers, which he says shows the political system is "crying out for head-to-toe reform".

Ministers are to revive shelved plans for laws to be introduced before 2015 to regulate lobbyists and recall errant MPs following the allegations, which may have damaged the standing of parliament.

Nick Clegg, who had dropped a coalition pledge for a new lobbying register and powers to recall errant MPs, said he was optimistic the plan could be forced through parliament.''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-lobbying-laws

[Livia]

Lobbying is important... it's when it's done in return for personal gain that it becomes dispicable and anyone accepting cash or other "gifts" for lobbying should be dismissed instantly.

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment... the way the press, and in particular the BBC, went about getting this juicy story amounts to entrapment.

[Kizzy]

Entrapment.. how else was this to be exposed, ask them nicely if they were acting illegally?

[lostalex]

It doesn't make any sense to have a house of lords to begin with. It's hilarious hearing the people against the EU talking about undemocratic unelected europeans making decisions for them, but alot of them are royalists. They should be even more outraged by the house of lords and the monarchy than the EU.

[Nedusa]

I think the way the BBC went about creating this story is a bit underhand but how else can they bring out what is obviously a growing problem to the full glare of the public. Lobbying by its very nature is flawed as one party will always have an agenda that if enacted would be to the disadvantage of other parties.

Lobbying and offering bribes should not be tolerated and anybody in a position of power taking money or gifts in exchange for furtherment of specific policies should be dismissed immediately and prosecuted under code of business ethics (if legislation exists)

One only has to look at the farce that once passed as American politics to see the damage lobbying does, the truth is lobbying is usually carried out by large multi national Corporations for sympathetic policy changes that result in MORE profit and less responsibility to the ordinary person on the street.

Governments are elected by the people to govern for the benefit of the people NOT to help big Business make a fast buck.....!!!!!

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Livia

Lobbying is important... it's when it's done in return for personal gain that it becomes dispicable and anyone accepting cash or other "gifts" for lobbying should be dismissed instantly.

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment... the way the press, and in particular the BBC, went about getting this juicy story amounts to entrapment.

Who cares. Guilty is all that matters.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I think the way the BBC went about creating this story is a bit underhand but how else can they bring out what is obviously a growing problem to the full glare of the public. Lobbying by its very nature is flawed as one party will always have an agenda that if enacted would be to the disadvantage of other parties.

Lobbying and offering bribes should not be tolerated and anybody in a position of power taking money or gifts in exchange for furtherment of specific policies should be dismissed immediately and prosecuted under code of business ethics (if legislation exists)

One only has to look at the farce that once passed as American politics to see the damage lobbying does, the truth is lobbying is usually carried out by large multi national Corporations for sympathetic policy changes that result in MORE profit and less responsibility to the ordinary person on the street.

Governments are elected by the people to govern for the benefit of the people NOT to help big Business make a fast buck.....!!!!!

Do you mean like the reduction of the feed in tariff for solar paneling that saw councils providing them on their properties that would have benefitted towns and cities as well as private owners that actually reduced their bills to 0 or actually made money selling the energy back to their provider...and not the big 6?

[arista]

Originally Posted by lostalex

It doesn't make any sense to have a house of lords to begin with. It's hilarious hearing the people against the EU talking about undemocratic unelected europeans making decisions for them, but alot of them are royalists. They should be even more outraged by the house of lords and the monarchy than the EU.

They are part of the history
Something USA does not have as its a new nation

[Livia]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Who cares. Guilty is all that matters.

Absolutely they're guilty and they deserve to be punished. But is it okay for the press and, in particular, the publicly funded BBC, to entice people into breaking the law in order to boost programme ratings or newspaper sales? If it's okay to entrap MPs, then presumably it's okay for the press to entrap anyone to make a story.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Livia

Absolutely they're guilty and they deserve to be punished. But is it okay for the press and, in particular, the publicly funded BBC, to entice people into breaking the law in order to boost programme ratings or newspaper sales? If it's okay to entrap MPs, then presumably it's okay for the press to entrap anyone to make a story.

Entrapment is committing an offence that they are unlikely to commit. I don't think this guy was unlikely to follow thru when offered money. The ends justifies the means IMO.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by arista

They are part of the history
Something USA does not have as its a new nation

There is nothing new about the USA, and the USA has more history in 1 state than most countries. Let's look at most countries in europe which technically are much younger. The USA is the oldest democracy in the world.

I'm sure the Native Americans(myself included) would also take issue with your statement.

Oh i forgot you're British, you believe that a country didn't exist until you got there. lol

[Livia]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Entrapment is committing an offence that they are unlikely to commit. I don't think this guy was unlikely to follow thru when offered money. The ends justifies the means IMO.

Entrapment is just what it says, a trap. It gives someone the opportunity to commit an offence, it is conjecture whether they would or would not be likely to commit that offence in the first place. I think it's a slippery slope. Most people think it's acceptable because it's politicians who're getting the brunt of it. Not sure how willing people would be to accept it if everyone was fair game.

We disagree again GiRTh... nice to see you though.

[Kizzy]

So when the sun exposed those on ELA at theme parks, or gardening we should all be up in arms about the deception and the underhanded tictacs involved in exposing them?

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Livia

Entrapment is just what it says, a trap. It gives someone the opportunity to commit an offence, it is conjecture whether they would or would not be likely to commit that offence in the first place. I think it's a slippery slope. Most people think it's acceptable because it's politicians who're getting the brunt of it. Not sure how willing people would be to accept it if everyone was fair game.

We disagree again GiRTh... nice to see you though.

We agree entrapment is a slippery slope and yes I am laughing cuz its a politician. Nice to hear from you too.

[joeysteele]

I personally don't like entrapment, however it can only really work on those who would and do take the bait so are greedy as in these instances.
Without the entrapment,they would have probably gone on doing it and maybe never have been exposed as being involved in wrongdoing.

[Omah]

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-pract...ing-entrapment

"The law regarding entrapment"

Thursday 24 June 2010 by David Sleight (who represented Edward Terry in his recent criminal case)

‘It is a very, very clear case of entrapment solely to create a newspaper story.’ So said His Honour Judge Mitchell at the sentencing hearing of Edward Terry, the father of England footballer John Terry, at Basildon Crown Court earlier this month. The case was brought by the CPS following a News of the World ‘sting’ where Terry was secretly filmed facilitating the supply of a small amount of cocaine to an undercover reporter.

Despite the judge’s comments, the question of whether or not the law affords sufficient protection to those who are entrapped by undercover journalists into committing criminal offences is far from clear.

It is established case law that, while offering significant mitigation at sentence, there is no defence of entrapment in English law (R v Sang [1980] AC 402). However, it is also considered to be an abuse of court process for agents of the state to lure citizens into committing illegal acts and then seek to prosecute them for doing so. State-created entrapment of this sort will result in a stay of proceedings.

The leading case on entrapment is R v Loosely [2001] UKHL 53. The case was concerned with the actions of undercover police officers carrying out test purchase operations. Lord Nicholls identified that a useful guide when considering whether the conduct of the police amounted to inciting or instigating crime was to ascertain whether the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime. If the police conduct preceding the commission of the offence was no more than might have been expected by others in the circumstances this would not constitute entrapment. If, however, it went beyond this an abuse of process by the state may well be established.

For defendants who commit crimes following entrapment by private parties, the abuse argument is much more difficult to sustain. In R v Shannon (aka Alford) which followed the infamous ‘fake-sheikh’ sting by the News of the World, the former London’s Burning actor was filmed supplying drugs to the undercover reporter. Shannon appealed against his conviction on the basis that the evidence was obtained unfairly under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In the Court of Appeal, Potter LJ stated that it is insufficient that the unfairness complained of relates to the fact that the defendant would not have committed the crime but for the incitement of others, unless the behaviour of the police or the prosecuting authority has been such as to justify an abuse of process.

Therefore, the key issue in an application for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process or exclusion of evidence under section 78 in entrapment cases is the conduct of the police or the prosecuting authority. The problem for defendants in private entrapment cases is that, unless there is some kind of criticism to be levelled specifically at the police or the Crown Prosecution Service relating to how the evidence was obtained, then any argument regarding exclusion of evidence or an abuse of process is likely to fail. After all, the Crown would argue that they are simply presenting the evidence as obtained by a third party in line with their duty to prosecute criminal offences. In most cases of private entrapment, the Crown would only become involved after the offence, and indeed after the entrapment, has taken place.

It appears perverse that, while the law protects against the state causing citizens to commit illegal acts, it does not protect against private parties doing the same thing, where often the participation of the private ‘entrapper’ goes beyond that which would be deemed appropriate by law enforcement officers. Many newspapers stings involve an expensive and targeted campaign on one individual, based on limited or no intelligence, where the inducement is persistent and the primary incentive is to sell newspapers, not to prevent crime.

In R v Latif [1996] 1 WLR 104, Lord Steyn stated that the court should exercise its jurisdiction to stay proceedings on the grounds of entrapment, where the judge considers that the bringing of the prosecution ‘amounts to an affront to the public conscience’. In certain circumstances the techniques adopted by undercover reporters to entrap citizens into committing criminal offences must pass this threshold. In any society governed by the rule of law, it is surely undesirable for the press to have an unfettered power to utilise undercover techniques to solicit the commission of criminal offences.

That private entrapment does offend the public conscience, at least to some degree, is evidenced in the comments given by the jury when delivering their verdict of guilty in Hardwicke and Thwaites [2001] Crim L.R. 220: ‘The jury would like to say that the circumstances surrounding the case have made it very difficult for us to reach a decision. Had we been allowed to take the extreme provocation into account we would have undoubtedly reached a different verdict.’

It is clear that the jury in this case felt constrained by the law as it stands and believed that the entrapment in this case, which again involved the supply of drugs to an undercover News of the World reporter, affected the propriety of the conviction.

In light of the above there must be an onus on the CPS in private entrapment cases to carefully consider the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, and if appropriate, to exercise their discretion not to prosecute on the basis that it would not be in the public interest. In Loosely, Lord Nicholls submitted a number of factors which are of particular relevance when considering whether the conduct of the prosecution would be an affront to the public conscience. It is submitted that those factors (below), adapted from Lord Nicholl’s speech and applied to individuals entrapped by undercover reporters, may offer some guidance in consideration of whether it is in the public interest to prosecute someone who commits an offence in those circumstances:

• Whether or not the undercover reporter did more than present an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime;
• The reason for the particular sting operation. Is the reporter/newspaper acting in good faith and not, for example, as part of malicious vendetta against a particular suspect;
• The nature and extent of the reporter’s participation. The greater the inducement and the more forceful or persistent his overtures, the more likely that the conduct might have brought about commission of crime by a suspect who would normally avoid crime of that kind;
• The suspect’s criminal record. This will only be relevant if it can be linked to other factors grounding reasonable suspicion that the defendant is currently engaged in criminal activity.

Unfortunately, once the CPS has decided that a prosecution should ensue, the remedies appear remote, even for clear cases of entrapment. The case law focuses on state-created entrapment but its application to private entrapment cases has not been thoroughly tested. At present, the law regarding private entrapment appears to remain as Lord Fraser described it in Sang, ‘when Eve, taxed with having eaten the forbidden fruit, replied “the serpent beguiled me”, her excuse was, at most, a plea in mitigation and not a complete defence’.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...25/loose-1.htm

In R v Sang [1980] AC 402 your Lordships' House affirmed the Court of Appeal decisions of R v McEvilly (1973) 60 Cr App R 150 and R v Mealey (1974) 60 Cr App R 59. The House treated it as axiomatic that entrapment does not exist as a substantive defence in English law. Lord Diplock, at p 432, noted that many crimes are committed by one person at the instigation of others. The fact that the counsellor or procurer is a policeman or a police informer, although it may be of relevance in mitigation of penalty for the offence, cannot affect the guilt of the principal offender: 'both the physical element (actus reus) and the mental element (mens rea) of the offence with which he is charged are present in his case'. Likewise, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton observed, at p 446, that all the elements, factual and mental, of guilt are present and no finding other than guilty would be logically possible. The degree of guilt may be modified by the inducement and that can appropriately be reflected in the sentence. Lord Fraser famously added that when Eve, taxed with having eaten forbidden fruit, replied 'the serpent beguiled me', her excuse was at most a plea in mitigation and not a complete defence.

[Kizzy]

The public cannot 'entrap' anyone, entrapment I would have thought comes into play when an undercover police officer extracts a confession from a suspect without the obligatory caution.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The public cannot 'entrap' anyone, entrapment I would have thought comes into play when an undercover police officer extracts a confession from a suspect without the obligatory caution.

Check with your lawyer before you go for "the sting" .....

[Kizzy]

Oh I will.... do you know any?

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Oh I will.... do you know any?

Not personally, just in the way of "business (non-criminal)" .....